I saw a westbound SUV hit the shoulder and travel up this (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=40.764083,-74.400351&spn=0.002088,0.004742&sll=37.6,-95.665&sspn=35.278005,77.695313&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.764083,-74.400351&panoid=GCDdB5WW8iX6mHWCq95YRQ&cbp=12,74.69,,0,0). It's marked Do Not Enter from the side street but unmarked from 24. So if it's unmarked, does that make it legal to exit there? It even seems that there's a median break if you wanted to turn left! NJ 24 is supposed to be a freeway...
I just might have used a spot like that to enter I-66 once.....though in that case there were (still are) signs at each end saying "Do Not Enter Except Authorized Vehicles," so there was no doubt it would have been illegal.
I might have done it because it would have been highly convenient to where I was. Having an engine with a lot of low-end torque coupled with a six-speed manual might help in accelerating on the shoulder. Not that I'd know for sure......
Heh, also semi-local to the above. This gate is usually a shortcut for some locals off of I-78, particularly when it backs up. Its almost never closed. http://goo.gl/maps/Cv5Lg
Quote from: Steve on April 24, 2013, 10:19:08 PM
I saw a westbound SUV hit the shoulder and travel up this (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=40.764083,-74.400351&spn=0.002088,0.004742&sll=37.6,-95.665&sspn=35.278005,77.695313&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.764083,-74.400351&panoid=GCDdB5WW8iX6mHWCq95YRQ&cbp=12,74.69,,0,0). It's marked Do Not Enter from the side street but unmarked from 24. So if it's unmarked, does that make it legal to exit there? It even seems that there's a median break if you wanted to turn left! NJ 24 is supposed to be a freeway...
Interesting. There's something similar on the Cross Island Parkway in Queens, where there's an entrance/exit from the parkway from a shopping center parking lot, but it's marked DO NOT ENTER from both sides.
I'm pretty sure there's enough laws regarding crossing solid lines, riding shoulders and traffic flow on a roadway to make this illegal, regardless if there's a sign there.
There was an emergency access gate (hardly ever shut) on the NJ Turnpike in Deptford, NJ that was used by a lot of people not wanting to take Exit 3 or Exit 2. Occasionally, a state trooper greeted those people. Not only were they illegally using an emergency access road, but they were toll avaders as well. The access has since been upgraded to require card or remote access to open the gate (there's a camera there as well).
I know from experience in NJ unfortunately that cops have at thier discretion the choice to write a careless or reckless ticket when they do not have the tools at their disposal otherwise. Just becasue the sign is missing, doesn't mean the cop can't write you something else.
I would argue that it is careless (or reckless) to enter a limited access freeway from a 90-degree stub access road and try to get up to speed. This behavior fits the definition and now you find yourself in court fighting a 5 point ticket with a $500 fine or suspension instead of some 0 point ticket with a $50 fine as if the sign to not enter was there (or whatever it is).
I know in NJ cops like that ambiguous reckless and careless legal language behind that actual code and have no problem with signs missing on access points like these or openings between local and express lanes.
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on April 25, 2013, 10:01:58 AM
I know from experience in NJ unfortunately that cops have at thier discretion the choice to write a careless or reckless ticket when they do not have the tools at their disposal otherwise. Just becasue the sign is missing, doesn't mean the cop can't write you something else.
I would argue that it is careless (or reckless) to enter a limited access freeway from a 90-degree stub access road and try to get up to speed. This behavior fits the definition and now you find yourself in court fighting a 5 point ticket with a $500 fine or suspension instead of some 0 point ticket with a $50 fine as if the sign to not enter was there (or whatever it is).
I know in NJ cops like that ambiguous reckless and careless legal language behind that actual code and have no problem with signs missing on access points like these or openings between local and express lanes.
As I understand it, police in Massachusetts also have wide discretion to add "driving to endanger" if you're pulled over for almost any moving violation. Whcih can be a real PIA if you're hit with it, because driving to endanger is a criminal charge, whereas other moving violations are civil charges only.
And for the record, I'm not speaking from personal experience.
Quote from: Steve on April 24, 2013, 10:19:08 PM
I saw a westbound SUV hit the shoulder and travel up this (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=40.764083,-74.400351&spn=0.002088,0.004742&sll=37.6,-95.665&sspn=35.278005,77.695313&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.764083,-74.400351&panoid=GCDdB5WW8iX6mHWCq95YRQ&cbp=12,74.69,,0,0). It's marked Do Not Enter from the side street but unmarked from 24. So if it's unmarked, does that make it legal to exit there? It even seems that there's a median break if you wanted to turn left! NJ 24 is supposed to be a freeway...
Most of the areas like this I've seen are for emergency access only. They're not always marked. I don't know the circumstances, but could the SUV be a state, county, or municipal vehicle using the access for some reason (patrol, engineering, survey, etc)?
I always find these "reckless driving" charges to be utter nonsense, when officers are also likely to make an impromptu U-turn or weave at higher-than-averaged traffic flow speeds just to catch a speeder or HOV violator.
You want to hit me for breaking a posted law, fine...that's part of the game. Bringing in a vague interpretation of a law, with a virtually uncontestable fine...suddenly justice sounds more like a cash register.
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on April 25, 2013, 10:01:58 AM
I know from experience in NJ unfortunately that cops have at thier discretion the choice to write a careless or reckless ticket when they do not have the tools at their disposal otherwise. Just becasue the sign is missing, doesn't mean the cop can't write you something else.
I would argue that it is careless (or reckless) to enter a limited access freeway from a 90-degree stub access road and try to get up to speed. This behavior fits the definition and now you find yourself in court fighting a 5 point ticket with a $500 fine or suspension instead of some 0 point ticket with a $50 fine as if the sign to not enter was there (or whatever it is).
I know in NJ cops like that ambiguous reckless and careless legal language behind that actual code and have no problem with signs missing on access points like these or openings between local and express lanes.
In NJ, Careless Driving is the catch-all offense for everything. It actually benefits the driver as well - it's only a 2 point offense, typically with a $85 or so fine (although the fine can be increased up to $200). Many of the other offenses one can be charged with are much higher.
Reckless Driving is actually a very tough sell in NJ traditionally - you might as well run someone over high and drunk to be convicted with this offense. Sure, cops may charge you with it, but if you go to court (which is probably mandatory) chances are the offense will be downgraded. It's also much higher in points (5 points) and the fine is high as well. Cutting across a highway with traffic speeding by to get to an emergency exit for non-emergency purposes may seem reckless, but it's not the violation NJ would use to convict someone.
In this particular example, one would be charged with NJ State Statute 39:4-90.1: "Limited access highways, driving onto or from". "No person shall drive a vehicle onto or from any limited-access highway except at such entrances and exits as are established by public authority."
It's going to be pretty hard to claim that this example is a proper entrance or exit, due to the lack of signage stating it's an exit, striping, etc.
Here's NJ's point schedule, btw: http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/Violations/penalties_pointSchedule.htm
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 25, 2013, 01:25:17 PM
In this particular example, one would be charged with NJ State Statute 39:4-90.1: "Limited access highways, driving onto or from". "No person shall drive a vehicle onto or from any limited-access highway except at such entrances and exits as are established by public authority."
It's going to be pretty hard to claim that this example is a proper entrance or exit, due to the lack of signage stating it's an exit, striping, etc.
It would, I think, be hard to claim it's
not an exit as established by public authority. It is a road that is not identified as private property or prohibited to vehicles. When the highway was built, its intersection was not blocked off; whenever the highway is maintained, its intersection is not blocked off. What more definition than that does one need for a public way? I also notice there's not a "No Left Turn" sign on the other side of the highway either.
there is a sign that says NO TURNS serving the direction which has the mystery ramp to the right.
does not seem to be any signage for the other direction. that said, the NO TURNS is only visible from particular angles so there are multiple runs of the google car at work here... I would not be surprised if NO TURNS, in both directions, are a late addition to the intersection.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 25, 2013, 05:31:10 PM
there is a sign that says NO TURNS serving the direction which has the mystery ramp to the right.
does not seem to be any signage for the other direction. that said, the NO TURNS is only visible from particular angles so there are multiple runs of the google car at work here... I would not be surprised if NO TURNS, in both directions, are a late addition to the intersection.
Did not notice any such sign when I drove by, but I go that way often enough that I'll keep my eyes peeled.
Quote from: kphoger on April 25, 2013, 05:13:24 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 25, 2013, 01:25:17 PM
In this particular example, one would be charged with NJ State Statute 39:4-90.1: "Limited access highways, driving onto or from". "No person shall drive a vehicle onto or from any limited-access highway except at such entrances and exits as are established by public authority."
It's going to be pretty hard to claim that this example is a proper entrance or exit, due to the lack of signage stating it's an exit, striping, etc.
It would, I think, be hard to claim it's not an exit as established by public authority. It is a road that is not identified as private property or prohibited to vehicles. When the highway was built, its intersection was not blocked off; whenever the highway is maintained, its intersection is not blocked off. What more definition than that does one need for a public way? I also notice there's not a "No Left Turn" sign on the other side of the highway either.
Per the NJ Administrative Code, http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/rules/documents/AppB4-2012.pdf , all of Route 24 is deemed 'Fully Controlled Access'.
And adding to that, Route 24 is clearly a limited access roadway. While we are looking at Steve's picture of an aerial shot, traffic on Rt. 24 would barely see this access road when passing by. By state law, vehicles are prohibited from crossing the median. There are no lane markings to indicate there is an intersection. There is a rumble strip thru the intersection. There is no signage - cross road, t-intersection, Stop Sign, One Way sign, or other - to indicate it's a valid roadway. In other words, there is nothing to indicate the access road is a valid entrance/exit off a freeway in NJ (which is defined as well).
The absense of signage does not make it a public road as well. If that was the case, then we would need signage all over the place indicating every law. There would need to be a sign at every intersection that one must use a turn signage when turning, not to mention the entire length of a highway when changing lanes. We would need signage after every side street to indicate a speed limit. We would need signage to indicate the .08 BAL. And so on...
It seems pretty clear to me that this is a service road, not intended or legal for the general public to use.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 24, 2013, 10:23:01 PM
I just might have used a spot like that to enter I-66 once.....though in that case there were (still are) signs at each end saying "Do Not Enter Except Authorized Vehicles," so there was no doubt it would have been illegal.
I might have done it because it would have been highly convenient to where I was. Having an engine with a lot of low-end torque coupled with a six-speed manual might help in accelerating on the shoulder. Not that I'd know for sure......
Hoo, I presume you speak of the "ramps" from both sides of I-66 to Virginia Lane in the Falls Church area of Fairfax County here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=falls+church,+va&hl=en&ll=38.890682,-77.211174&spn=0.002334,0.004823&sll=40.764084,-74.400353&sspn=0.003235,0.004823&t=k&hnear=Falls+Church,+Virginia&z=18), right.
They are mostly used by VSP trooper cars to make "U" turns, since the presence of the WMATA Orange Line in the median of I-66 precludes a turn over the tracks with third rail.
There are similar "ramps" along the JFK Highway section of I-95 near Kingsville, Maryland to allow fire and rescue access to I-95 from Bradshaw Road (here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=KINGSVILLE+MD&ll=39.428312,-76.387693&spn=0.004633,0.009645&safe=off&hnear=Kingsville,+Baltimore,+Maryland&gl=us&t=h&z=17)). Like the example by Steve, there is nothing to prevent a driver from using these "ramps," though they are not marked.
South of there (also on the JFK Highway), MdTA built similar ramps to allow access to and from Chesaco Avenue in the Overlea section of Baltimore County, but these are gated to deter unauthorized use (here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=overlea,+md&hl=en&ll=39.329576,-76.522018&spn=0.004672,0.009645&sll=39.428312,-76.387693&sspn=0.004633,0.009645&t=h&gl=us&hnear=Overlea,+Baltimore,+Maryland&z=17) - northbound GSV here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=overlea,+md&hl=en&ll=39.330746,-76.520848&spn=0.004672,0.009645&sll=39.428312,-76.387693&sspn=0.004633,0.009645&t=h&gl=us&hnear=Overlea,+Baltimore,+Maryland&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.330909,-76.521085&panoid=Agi3qsglYvy-d5SPj390HQ&cbp=12,160.02,,0,15.62) and southbound here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=overlea,+md&hl=en&ll=39.328895,-76.523917&spn=0.004672,0.009645&sll=39.428312,-76.387693&sspn=0.004633,0.009645&t=h&gl=us&hnear=Overlea,+Baltimore,+Maryland&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.328961,-76.523847&panoid=vgcwntYH9xwfeZerAckqxQ&cbp=12,328.35,,0,15.79)).
Md. 200 also has a set of gated ramps at Md. 115 (Muncaster Mill Road) here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=derwood+md&hl=en&ll=39.12664,-77.116041&spn=0.004653,0.009645&sll=39.328961,-76.523852&sspn=0.004672,0.009645&t=h&gl=us&hnear=Derwood,+Montgomery,+Maryland&z=17).
Quote from: vdeane on April 26, 2013, 11:45:21 AM
It seems pretty clear to me that this is a service road, not intended or legal for the general public to use.
I agree. Though why is not not signed "Official Use Only" or DO NOT ENTER by NJDOT?
Quote from: dgolub on April 25, 2013, 08:34:55 AM
Interesting. There's something similar on the Cross Island Parkway in Queens, where there's an entrance/exit from the parkway from a shopping center parking lot, but it's marked DO NOT ENTER from both sides.
Shopping center? Where?
:confused:
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 26, 2013, 12:29:34 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 26, 2013, 11:45:21 AM
It seems pretty clear to me that this is a service road, not intended or legal for the general public to use.
I agree. Though why is not not signed "Official Use Only" or DO NOT ENTER by NJDOT?
Probably northeast convention. Since we tend to prohibit general use of median crossovers etc. it's probably assumed that drivers would get the message (the other access point from the side street is marked do not enter though).
Well now that you mention it, my favorite exit on I-78 is the real "last exit before PA" -- exit 2: https://maps.google.com/?ll=40.650737,-75.158015&spn=0.00213,0.003661&t=h&z=19
And I've entered the highway here once right alongside a state trooper, who did not seem to mind.
EDIT: See also: Exit 44A: http://goo.gl/maps/uPVKn
Quote from: vdeane on April 27, 2013, 11:39:36 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 26, 2013, 12:29:34 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 26, 2013, 11:45:21 AM
It seems pretty clear to me that this is a service road, not intended or legal for the general public to use.
I agree. Though why is not not signed "Official Use Only" or DO NOT ENTER by NJDOT?
Probably northeast convention. Since we tend to prohibit general use of median crossovers etc. it's probably assumed that drivers would get the message (the other access point from the side street is marked do not enter though).
Spied on it today. Median is marked "NO TURNS", but no signage prohibiting a right turn from WB.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 26, 2013, 12:26:36 PM
Hoo, I presume you speak of the "ramps" from both sides of I-66 to Virginia Lane in the Falls Church area of Fairfax County here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=falls+church,+va&hl=en&ll=38.890682,-77.211174&spn=0.002334,0.004823&sll=40.764084,-74.400353&sspn=0.003235,0.004823&t=k&hnear=Falls+Church,+Virginia&z=18), right.
....
Correct. There are gates on those "ramps," but I've never seen them closed. There are "Do Not Enter (Except Authorized Vehicles)" signs as well.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 28, 2013, 11:22:46 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 26, 2013, 12:26:36 PM
Hoo, I presume you speak of the "ramps" from both sides of I-66 to Virginia Lane in the Falls Church area of Fairfax County here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=falls+church,+va&hl=en&ll=38.890682,-77.211174&spn=0.002334,0.004823&sll=40.764084,-74.400353&sspn=0.003235,0.004823&t=k&hnear=Falls+Church,+Virginia&z=18), right.
....
Correct. There are gates on those "ramps," but I've never seen them closed. There are "Do Not Enter (Except Authorized Vehicles)" signs as well.
I have never seen them secured either. I have noticed them closed or partly closed, but never locked.
May be because the patrol area for the VSP Area 45 Office ends there (I-66 from I-495 to the Prince William County/Fairfax County line is Area 9), and it provides a convenient place to make that "U" turn.
Quote from: Steve on April 24, 2013, 10:19:08 PM
I saw a westbound SUV hit the shoulder and travel up this (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=40.764083,-74.400351&spn=0.002088,0.004742&sll=37.6,-95.665&sspn=35.278005,77.695313&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.764083,-74.400351&panoid=GCDdB5WW8iX6mHWCq95YRQ&cbp=12,74.69,,0,0). It's marked Do Not Enter from the side street but unmarked from 24. So if it's unmarked, does that make it legal to exit there? It even seems that there's a median break if you wanted to turn left! NJ 24 is supposed to be a freeway...
And Strangely it looks like they were planning for more: http://goo.gl/maps/aDUFw :confused:
Quote from: Roadgeek2500 on April 28, 2013, 08:12:23 PM
And Strangely it looks like they were planning for more: http://goo.gl/maps/aDUFw :confused:
More what? That looks like a utility ROW.
Quote from: _Simon on April 27, 2013, 05:54:18 PM
Well now that you mention it, my favorite exit on I-78 is the real "last exit before PA" -- exit 2: https://maps.google.com/?ll=40.650737,-75.158015&spn=0.00213,0.003661&t=h&z=19
And I've entered the highway here once right alongside a state trooper, who did not seem to mind.
EDIT: See also: Exit 44A: http://goo.gl/maps/uPVKn
Locals seem to know this one and there is a sign that says no outlet on the access ramp to this state trooper hiding spot on Springtown rd (CR-519)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 26, 2013, 12:29:34 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 26, 2013, 11:45:21 AM
It seems pretty clear to me that this is a service road, not intended or legal for the general public to use.
I agree. Though why is not not signed "Official Use Only" or DO NOT ENTER by NJDOT?
The signs could've been there at one point, but went missing (run over, stolen, etc) and never replaced.
Quote from: Interstatefan78 on April 28, 2013, 09:52:26 PM
Locals seem to know this one and there is a sign that says no outlet on the access ramp to this state trooper hiding spot on Springtown rd (CR-519)
There might not be any electrical outlets, but you can certainly enter onto I-78 WB here :D. I for one have no problem wedging my car anyplace it fits not protected by do not enter signs. I once drove my car all the way up to here while shooting video: http://goo.gl/maps/cdXFk (Despite the arrows and "street" names, everything here is usually closed to vehicular traffic during the normal season except the Perimeter Rd and occasionally Ave of Commerce)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 26, 2013, 08:50:52 AM
Per the NJ Administrative Code, http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/rules/documents/AppB4-2012.pdf , all of Route 24 is deemed 'Fully Controlled Access'.
And adding to that, Route 24 is clearly a limited access roadway. While we are looking at Steve's picture of an aerial shot, traffic on Rt. 24 would barely see this access road when passing by. By state law, vehicles are prohibited from crossing the median. There are no lane markings to indicate there is an intersection. There is a rumble strip thru the intersection. There is no signage - cross road, t-intersection, Stop Sign, One Way sign, or other - to indicate it's a valid roadway. In other words, there is nothing to indicate the access road is a valid entrance/exit off a freeway in NJ (which is defined as well).
The absense of signage does not make it a public road as well. If that was the case, then we would need signage all over the place indicating every law. There would need to be a sign at every intersection that one must use a turn signage when turning, not to mention the entire length of a highway when changing lanes. We would need signage after every side street to indicate a speed limit. We would need signage to indicate the .08 BAL. And so on...
By legal definition, then, one is not allowed to cross the median on this highway. But that still leaves the issue of it being an apparent RIRO. Is there anything in the NJ definition of a freeway entrance/exit (to which your refer above) which makes it clear the intersection in question is
not one?
FWIW, I would argue that a lack of signage
does make a road a public way (as long as it's not on private property), which has nothing at all to do with your strawmen signs of turn signaling and legal BAC. A road on public land that is not blockaded or signed for no entry
is a public way. It's the reason I had no problem entering US-65 from this
public way (http://goo.gl/maps/ahPGu) when the gate was open (view from the other side here (http://goo.gl/maps/qEe4v)).
http://goo.gl/maps/vG8BG
I added it to Google maps as a private one way, at least until some signage indicates otherwise.
Quote from: kphoger on May 07, 2013, 02:19:43 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 26, 2013, 08:50:52 AM
Per the NJ Administrative Code, http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/rules/documents/AppB4-2012.pdf , all of Route 24 is deemed 'Fully Controlled Access'.
And adding to that, Route 24 is clearly a limited access roadway. While we are looking at Steve's picture of an aerial shot, traffic on Rt. 24 would barely see this access road when passing by. By state law, vehicles are prohibited from crossing the median. There are no lane markings to indicate there is an intersection. There is a rumble strip thru the intersection. There is no signage - cross road, t-intersection, Stop Sign, One Way sign, or other - to indicate it's a valid roadway. In other words, there is nothing to indicate the access road is a valid entrance/exit off a freeway in NJ (which is defined as well).
The absense of signage does not make it a public road as well. If that was the case, then we would need signage all over the place indicating every law. There would need to be a sign at every intersection that one must use a turn signage when turning, not to mention the entire length of a highway when changing lanes. We would need signage after every side street to indicate a speed limit. We would need signage to indicate the .08 BAL. And so on...
By legal definition, then, one is not allowed to cross the median on this highway. But that still leaves the issue of it being an apparent RIRO. Is there anything in the NJ definition of a freeway entrance/exit (to which your refer above) which makes it clear the intersection in question is not one?
I think it's perfectly clear that with a solid white line, a rumble strip, no street signs, no advanced exit signs, and no advisory signs that this is not a legal street.
Again, a lack of signage does not open up pavement to be a legal street. I don't recall seeing any signs on this road about not having a beer while driving. But if anyone wants to see what happens when you use that excuse, go right ahead.
kphoger: We all know damn well it's not intended to be used as a public thoroughfare. I don't think anyone is saying that this street was ever intended to be a real exit; and yes, if a police officer wanted to fuck your day up, he could charge you with careless driving, or one of a million other vague charges that could apply anywhere and to anything that a cop doesn't want you doing. It's just that due to circumstance, it has been left open, happens to exit to someplace useful where no exit does currently, and happens by pure chance to not have any signage prohibiting its use; which, while obviously not an exit, is ambigious enough in the fact that no signage prevents its use, to the point where some people, like myself (and the person Steve originally saw), would be willing to take the risk of using it. </longest run on sentence ever> Best case scenario, you shave 5-10 minutes off your trip (or emergency); worst case scenario, you shave 5-10 minutes off your trip at a cost of $58, a visit to the njmcdirect website, and possibly 2 points if you couldn't get your way out of it. Like I've said, I've used these "access points" on interstates while state troopers were sitting in them, without any apparent penalty for driving past the cop and entering the highway. Your milage may vary. If it's that big a of a deal to someone, they can erect a sign or gate. That's my opinion anyway.
Quote from: _Simon on May 08, 2013, 10:00:55 AM
kphoger: We all know damn well it's not intended to be used as a public thoroughfare. I don't think anyone is saying that this street was ever intended to be a real exit...
Yes, it's obvious that it wasn't
intended to be used as a traffic route (or, at the very least, it's been a long time since it was). But that's not what makes it
illegal or not to use a road. When did America stop being the land of the free? Is it not common sense that we're allowed to go where we please unless there's a law in force preventing us from doing so? My question is whether there's actually any law on the books that would prevent me from using the road in question as a public way. If not, then....this land was made for you and me.
Quote from: _Simon on May 08, 2013, 10:00:55 AM
worst case scenario, you shave 5-10 minutes off your trip at a cost of $58, a visit to the njmcdirect website, and possibly 2 points if you couldn't get your way out of it.
That's the case with any law. If a police officer wrongfully accuses you of breaking a law, it's still on you to get your way out of it, with the possibility of not being able to get your way out of it. But that doesn't mean you were
actually in the wrong. It's neither here nor there as to the legality of whatever it is you did. As an example: if a police officer tickets you for turning left from the second lane at a red light, from a one-way street to another one-way street, in a state where it isn't prohibited to do so (example here (http://goo.gl/maps/moFJD))–you would still be responsible for whatever rigmarole comes with the ticket. But that doesn't it mean it was
actually illegal to make the turn.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 08, 2013, 08:23:27 AM
I think it's perfectly clear that with a solid white line, a rumble strip, no street signs, no advanced exit signs, and no advisory signs that this is not a legal street.
You may think it's clear, but what you or I think doesn't carry the weight of law. So again I ask: is there any law on the books that would prevent a person from making a right turn into or out of that intersection? For example, is it prohibited to turn right across a solid white line or onto streets without street signs? I can think of examples in other locations where an obviously legal turn can only be made by crossing both a solid white line and a rumble strip onto an unnamed road (one example here (http://goo.gl/maps/ZYtk0), though this one includes a couple of regulatory signs).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 08, 2013, 08:23:27 AM
Again, a lack of signage does not open up pavement to be a legal street. I don't recall seeing any signs on this road about not having a beer while driving. But if anyone wants to see what happens when you use that excuse, go right ahead.
Again with the strawmen. On one level, I agree that a lack of signage does not open up pavement to be a legal street. But, in the absence of anything
else restricting access (e.g. vehicle codes), then what makes it
not a legal street? To use your strawman as an example, what makes having a beer while driving illegal, even in the absence of signage, is that there's an actual
law on the books. Having an apple juice while driving, in contradistinction, is perfectly legal, even though there are no signs specifically allowing it. Same deal for not signalling when changing lanes and exceeding a certain BAC: there are laws on the books that cover these actions. Not starting to signal two miles in advance of your lane change is perfectly acceptable; having a drink but staying under a certain BAC is perfectly acceptable.